Every minute counts

[MrBarnett]

I use the word ‘immediately’ instead of ‘at once’ and am slated for ‘claim[ing]things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts...’

Christer presents us with Mizen saying ‘There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter’ and turns it into ‘it had run over the brim and started to pour into the gutter’.

[MrBarnett]

Nichols was dead, Gary. Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?
Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is?
What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of, I beleive, although I have not checked all the papers (I can only bring myself to so much...) He does not say that he did so "immediately" and he mentions not that he saw to it that Mizen did not take a look at the victim before scarpering off, does he? Mizen himself does say that he at once went for the ambulance, but that does not mean that he could not have had a look before Neil told him to do so.

We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.

Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated. Once again, that fits 100 per cent with him looking at the blood as he arrived in Bucks Row the first time and very poorly with his second arrival half an hour later.

If you choose the illogical solution over the logical one, it is your choice and prerogative. Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.

Can you explain the quantitative difference between ‘at once’ and ‘immediately’? In terms of seconds preferably. To me the two terms carry the same meaning.

Perhaps you are in receipt of expert opinion that ‘at once’ allows for sufficient delay for someone to inspect a body and check on blood flow.

“I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.”

[drstrange169]

>> I suppose the good doctor may have misspoken and said ‘was oozing’ when he meant ‘had oozed’. <<

Misspokeness is a one way street, I'm afraid Gary. Neil could, and therefore must have, misspoke about the meaning of ooze, Mizen couldn't possibliy have misspoken about anything.

[MrBarnett]

I have read the thread and seen all the fors and againsts, just as I have read all the stuff about whether there were illicit horse meat businesses or not. It was another example of ripperology at its finest in many ways. What it all boiled down to (excuse the pun) was that nothing much could be proven either way.

Being personally convinced of something does not come with any guarantees of everybody agreeing with you. Trust me, I know. I am not opposed to the idea that Maria Louisa was a lowly cats meat woman to aggravate you, you have my word on that. I actually do think her horse chunks were much bigger and bonier.

But just like you I cannot prove my point, so I have to settle for knowing that she was in the horse flesh business and accepting that as such, that does no harm at all to the Lechmere theory.

Perhaps you can explain why you think her chunks were much bigger and bonier.

Neither of us can prove our point, but I can provide endless examples that support mine. Do you have any examples to support yours?

[MrBarnett]

>> ... there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".<<


Checking within my timeframe, I could find only one hit for your italicised phrase: Joseph Feltham 18th Oct 1882 Manslaughter.

It can be found here:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-951#highlight

And it's another lock, stock and two smoking barrels!

Here's what James Thorton Gilbert the attending medical man said,

"I think she had been dead from four to five hours- she was perfectly cold;rigor mortis had set in ... blood and froth was oozing from the mouth and nose ..."

So, we have another case of blood oozing a significant time after death, this time over four hours after death!

As I keep repeating, the blood evidence theory had been terminated with extreme predudice.

I suppose the good doctor may have misspoken and said ‘was oozing’ when he meant ‘had oozed’.

[MrBarnett]

For Gary:

I took a look at that last post of yours on the horseflesh thread last evening, and it seems to me that it is more of the material posted on JTR. Itīs abpout how there were laws and practices against people who were unlinked to the legal trade, and who were nevertheless cutting up horseflesh. But as was said many times on that JTR thread, legislation is about stating an aim and about passing verdicts upon those who donīt comply, itīs not about eradicating crime a such. Murder is forbidden too, but it nevertheless occurs.

That said, I think it is time for me to say that we must not think that the case against Lechmere stands and falls with Ma Lechmere having a bone saw in Cable Street. It is not as if bone saws could not be aquired if you wanted to.

I am saying that there are far too many things pointing to Charles Lechmere for him not to be the killer of Nichols.

And I am saying that the man who killed Nichols was the Ripper.

And I am saying that the Ripper and the Torso killer were doubtlessly the same.

My conclusion is therefore not that Ma Lechmere must have had a bonesaw. It is instead that Charles Lechmere had access to one.

And he had access to that bonesaw as early as 1873, if I am correct, presumably way before Ma Lechmere took up horseflesh and moved to Cable Street.

I nevertheless stand by how I believe that there is an intriguing possibility that the Pinchin Street woman was cut up in the Cable Street flat and that there was a bonesaw in place there.

Then again, maybe he brought his own.

Stunning!

Nothing I posted was about people illegally cutting up horse flesh. Where on earth did you get that from?

Since you mention it, what evidence do you have that Joseph Forsdike was in hospital at the time CAL was carving up the Pinchin Street victim? And if there is any, what makes you think that Victorian hospitals encouraged patients’ family members to sit by their besides for any length of time?

[drstrange169]

>>What cannot be suggested is that the pathologists in my book were unaware of how bleeding processes go down, or that they would not be able to make a fair assessment of those matters. Iīm sure you have heard it before, but you are no medico - they are. <<

I'll leave that to David Orsam's analysis of the matter, which covers the problems with the medicos comments.

[drstrange169]

>>The alternative is that it was made up by journalists...<<

Like that's never happened!

[Fisherman]

For Gary:

I took a look at that last post of yours on the horseflesh thread last evening, and it seems to me that it is more of the material posted on JTR. Itīs abpout how there were laws and practices against people who were unlinked to the legal trade, and who were nevertheless cutting up horseflesh. But as was said many times on that JTR thread, legislation is about stating an aim and about passing verdicts upon those who donīt comply, itīs not about eradicating crime a such. Murder is forbidden too, but it nevertheless occurs.

That said, I think it is time for me to say that we must not think that the case against Lechmere stands and falls with Ma Lechmere having a bone saw in Cable Street. It is not as if bone saws could not be aquired if you wanted to.

I am saying that there are far too many things pointing to Charles Lechmere for him not to be the killer of Nichols.

And I am saying that the man who killed Nichols was the Ripper.

And I am saying that the Ripper and the Torso killer were doubtlessly the same.

My conclusion is therefore not that Ma Lechmere must have had a bonesaw. It is instead that Charles Lechmere had access to one.

And he had access to that bonesaw as early as 1873, if I am correct, presumably way before Ma Lechmere took up horseflesh and moved to Cable Street.

I nevertheless stand by how I believe that there is an intriguing possibility that the Pinchin Street woman was cut up in the Cable Street flat and that there was a bonesaw in place there.

Then again, maybe he brought his own.

[Fisherman]

do people still bleed an hour after their throat has been cut, their mid section gashed and they are dead ? a half hour?
how long do people even stay alive after such wounds?

its common sense. polly nichols was very recently killed when in the company of lech and paul. hence pointing to a strong possibility lech was her killer.

or we can go with the possibility of yet another phantom ripper.
but of course there is zero evidence for one.

Since when does common sense play a role in all of this, Abby?

[Fisherman]

>>do people still bleed an hour after their throat has been cut, their mid section gashed and they are dead ? a half hour?<<

According to Inspector Reid the Pinchin Street torso had, "blood oozing from it." Dr. Hebbert estimated death 24 hours prior. Was that poor girls injuries less than Mrs Nichols?

The case I highlighted in post #167 had "many arteries severed", not only did that dead body bleed at least the 20 minutes prior to the doctors arrival, he stated that it was still bleeding when he left.

Of course each case is different, that's why trying to make a case for timing is a zero sum game.

What has been established is that people bleed for extended periods after death. Basing a theory around timing of bleeding has no value because the difference between Cross killing and Cross disturbing the killer is impossible to determine because the difference could be as little as a minute or two and there is NO medical justification available for how long someone might bleed.

Add to that the fact it can't be established when Mizen saw the blood he spoke of and whether Neil used the word "ooze" correctly or not, we are in the realm of wild speculation not any kind of useful forensic analysis. Which is why the theory is deader than the two men either side of Jesus this week.

The Pinchin Street torso had dried up cutting surfaces where the legs had been but a moist surface at the neck, giving away that the neck had been taken off more recently than the legs. The blood that stays inside a body remains on a liquid state for a very long time. It is only when it passes over a cut area that the coagulation starts. The implicaation are therefore that the killer cut the legs off early in the process whereas the head was severed from the body in close connection with the transport to the railway arch. It is not as if she had been bleeding from the neck since she was killed.

You see, when we look at things in a correct manner, they tend to take on another hue.

Itīs really funny to see how you seem to derive pleasure from claiming that the theory is dead, basing it on a combination of misrepresenting, some rather funny googling insights and a dismissal of what two forensic pathologists said.

The theory is dead when you can PROVE that Neil meant trickling only very slowly, when you can PROVE that Mizen did not comment on the blood relating to the first time he saw Nichols and when you can PROVE that the pathologists suggestion that the bleeding time was more likely to be three or five minutes than seven.

That, Dusty, is how theories are put to death - they are proven wrong. The mortality of this particular theory is luckily not dependant on your personal suggestions and convictions.

I suggest we try to adapt a more serious tone forthwith.

[Fisherman]

>> ... there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".<<


Checking within my timeframe, I could find only one hit for your italicised phrase: Joseph Feltham 18th Oct 1882 Manslaughter.

It can be found here:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-951#highlight

And it's another lock, stock and two smoking barrels!

Here's what James Thorton Gilbert the attending medical man said,

"I think she had been dead from four to five hours- she was perfectly cold;rigor mortis had set in ... blood and froth was oozing from the mouth and nose ..."

So, we have another case of blood oozing a significant time after death, this time over four hours after death!

As I keep repeating, the blood evidence theory had been terminated with extreme predudice.

You are sidestepping the real issue here. That issue is that you seemingly counted all cases of the word ooze in the 72 case tally as cases where ooze will have been in line with the dictionaries if nothing was said about a profusion of blood or heavy bleeding or something such. And that is not a honest way of presenting the material, is it? If the amounts of blood and the spped of how it travelled are not described, the question about these parameters remain open.

I donīt think, by the way, that people who have been dead for five hours and who have grown cold will be actively bleeding and frothing from the nose. My take on things is that the doctor described a bllodflow that had stopped long ago. As I said in the previous post, the pathologists named in my book will be quite suited to assess these matters.

Although the last bleeding minute possible cannot be identified as such, the more important thing is that both pathologists stated that three or five minutes of bleeding would be more LIKELY than seven. And likelihoods are what we have to go by. In this particular case, it involves the suggestion that five hours of bleeding after death is incrdeibly less likely than five minutes.

These empirically aquired insights is what makes the blood evidence very damning for Charles Lechmere. Of course, we can close out eyes, put our hands before our ears and mumble "There is no blood evidence, there is no blood evidence, there is no blood evidence..." but as long as expereinced and highly regarded specialists in the field agree that the evidence is there and points to Lechmere being a very likely killer, it really does not change things very much. Itīs a bummer, I know.

[Fisherman]

>>Neil spoke of how Nichols bled "profusely" in initial reports, <<

Incorrect, we have no record of Neil "speaking" Mrs Nichols bleeding profusely.

But, all this is irrelevant, because we now know for certain that bodies can bled for a substantial time after death, so the "blood evidence" theory is like William Holden at the start of Sunset Boulevard.

The journalists did not see the blood flow and so the person quoted is Neil. Whether the reports say "...says John Neil" or not, this is the one person who must lie behind the term. The alternative is that it was made up by journalists, which is not inpossible per se, but since there is no evidence that tells us that this was so, the in initial reports carry weight.

You are right about how it is impossible to establish a maximum time of bleeding, as I pointed out in a former post. No such minute can be identified, and one more minute can always be suggested.

What cannot be suggested is that the pathologists in my book were unaware of how bleeding processes go down, or that they would not be able to make a fair assessment of those matters. Iīm sure you have heard it before, but you are no medico - they are.

[drstrange169]

>>do people still bleed an hour after their throat has been cut, their mid section gashed and they are dead ? a half hour?<<

According to Inspector Reid the Pinchin Street torso had, "blood oozing from it." Dr. Hebbert estimated death 24 hours prior. Was that poor girls injuries less than Mrs Nichols?

The case I highlighted in post #167 had "many arteries severed", not only did that dead body bleed at least the 20 minutes prior to the doctors arrival, he stated that it was still bleeding when he left.

Of course each case is different, that's why trying to make a case for timing is a zero sum game.

What has been established is that people bleed for extended periods after death. Basing a theory around timing of bleeding has no value because the difference between Cross killing and Cross disturbing the killer is impossible to determine because the difference could be as little as a minute or two and there is NO medical justification available for how long someone might bleed.

Add to that the fact it can't be established when Mizen saw the blood he spoke of and whether Neil used the word "ooze" correctly or not, we are in the realm of wild speculation not any kind of useful forensic analysis. Which is why the theory is deader than the two men either side of Jesus this week.

[Abby Normal]

>> ... there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".<<


Checking within my timeframe, I could find only one hit for your italicised phrase: Joseph Feltham 18th Oct 1882 Manslaughter.

It can be found here:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-951#highlight

And it's another lock, stock and two smoking barrels!

Here's what James Thorton Gilbert the attending medical man said,

"I think she had been dead from four to five hours- she was perfectly cold;rigor mortis had set in ... blood and froth was oozing from the mouth and nose ..."

So, we have another case of blood oozing a significant time after death, this time over four hours after death!

As I keep repeating, the blood evidence theory had been terminated with extreme predudice.

but this is death from blunt force trauma no? much different from being ripped up. context is important.